set_keyframe

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (sets keyframes for animation) and provides multiple usage examples, but doesn't mention error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens when multiple properties are set simultaneously. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter explanations, return format, and multiple usage examples. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise as some information in the examples is somewhat repetitive. Every sentence adds value, particularly the examples which demonstrate different usage patterns.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect. The inclusion of return format details and multiple concrete examples provides substantial context. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or edge case information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations in the Args section. Each of the 7 parameters is clearly explained with format examples (e.g., 'x,y,z' format for position, frame numbers as strings), default behaviors (留空表示不设置 - leave empty means don't set), and relationships between parameters (property_name与property_value配合使用 - property_name used together with property_value).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('设置关键帧' - set keyframe) on specific resources ('指定物体的属性' - specified object's properties) in a specific context ('在 3ds Max 中' - in 3ds Max). It distinguishes from siblings like set_object_transform (which sets transform without keyframing) and set_object_property (which sets properties without keyframing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool - for setting keyframes on object properties in 3ds Max animation workflows. It mentions specific use cases (transform properties vs custom properties) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the distinction is implied through the tool's specific functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.